The title I'm about to translate is something I saw a long time ago on a forum. After visiting the main countries, I found that it's not quite what I thought. Western and Northern Europe have better welfare, while the welfare in the United States is much worse, and most of Eastern Europe is not worth looking at. However, it must be admitted that they are generally a notch higher than other countries. Of course, if you think that the people in Europe and America are living in dire conditions, then don't read on. It's also good to live in your own information cocoon.

In the past, I was also full of thoughts about exploitation, but after experiencing more things, I had some new ideas.

Firstly, it's about my own experience.

When I was a programmer, it was still more than ten years ago. It was not like now. At that time, those who joined our company were all default to roll B, and everyone actively carried out overtime like an arms race. Almost no one left work at the end of the day. If you left at the end of the day, the leader would talk to you at that time. At that time, everyone didn't think there was any problem and would directly ask if you were not full of work or if there was something at home.

Advertisement

You must ask, does such overtime make sense? Is it efficient? Of course, writing code seems to be a bit complicated, but for most programmers, after a period of time, it is a physical job. The main thing for physical work is the duration, just like bricklaying. The longer you move, the more bricks you move.

We call writing code "building the Great Wall" ourselves. You see how magnificent the Great Wall is. In fact, it is the laborers who carry the stones one by one and neatly build them.

The work of programmers is also similar, and there is a detailed process. There are templates for how to design, and writing code is not just how you want to write it. Even if you write something complicated, the leader may educate you not to mess around. The first thing to write code is to show it to others. If you can't understand this thing, it will not be maintained in the future. Try to write it as simple and clear as possible. Gradually, "industrial-grade code" has become a ledger. After the code is written, it is tested, and if there are problems, it needs to be modified. After modification, it is re-tested, and it is all arranged for you.

Overall, it is a physical job.

It has been many years, and I don't write code anymore. The company's business has also made a big step forward. The wall-building work before is now mostly transferred to outsourcing companies. We mainly study algorithms and core business and further raise the threshold for entry. A few years ago, I saw the following questions and found that I couldn't do any of them. My colleagues and I often joked that if we were interviewed now, we might not be able to pass.

I don't understand things like algorithms and model optimization now. I have several project teams under me doing this. I don't quite understand the work they do, and I can only understand the progress bar. However, the management mainly focuses on cost, risk, and progress. It's useless to care about other things, and I can't write it myself.The workflow of a standard algorithm guru is to come in every morning and sit there with flowcharts, discussing with other members of the project team, and in the afternoon, continuing to discuss with a few people back and forth. Sometimes, they simply go for a walk in the park with someone else.

The supervisors don't mind, as they are responsible for the results, and as long as the work is done before the deadline, it's fine. He goes back after work, generally without being bothered, and occasionally when his supervisor asks about the progress of a certain issue, he says he's still thinking about it, and that his thoughts are not clear at night, so the leaders should rest early.

Moreover, their way of working is more like that of an artist. They may not do anything for a long time, with no progress, but suddenly, in one or two days, when the ideas come, they work day and night to get it done.

This is also why many of our previous management routines for low-level coders are not very effective on the gurus. However, it is others who need to adapt, not the gurus. During management meetings, it is often said that we should provide good support for those gurus and not affect their performance.

Later, I had contact with some scientists from TSMC. They never work overtime, and most of the time, they are discussing with others. When they look at the computer, most of the time, they are reading emails. Once, during a meal, a scientist said that in their industry, they are not busy at all. Any slight change requires a long time to test, so when making changes, they must be extra careful, think and discuss repeatedly. Once a change is proposed, there will be nothing to do for a long time, and most of the work is to discuss with others to prevent themselves from missing anything.

I learned about the situation abroad, and it's similar. For example, the company that recently had a decisive impact in the field of AI drawing had an employee interview a while ago. The employee said that the company atmosphere is very good, you can bring dogs and children to work, and you can work at home or at the company. They also spent many years turning that algorithm from a paper into reality, and most of the time was spent discussing with peers.

So generally speaking, work that relies on brainpower is not too busy, because the brain is extremely dependent on a comfortable environment, and it often performs very poorly under high pressure. Think about it.

Moreover, there is a key issue. Physical labor does not require much communication. In fact, communicating with others while working may delay the work. The higher the level of mental labor, the less it can rely on individual efforts, and it must be repeatedly communicated with more capable people, so a lot of time is spent on meetings and communication. This also explains why academic exchanges are so important. If you don't communicate well, the problem you have been working on for several years may have already been solved by others, and these years have been wasted.

On the contrary, if there is not much brainpower needed, and the work is mainly physical output, then just squeeze it hard, and because the replaceability is high, the salary is also not high.

Understanding this, and then looking at Europe and America, it is actually easier to understand.The key lies in the technology field taking the lead, and those industries are extremely dependent on the "big gods" (experts). Once the experts have made breakthroughs, the next step is to continuously optimize and iterate the products during the use process, which can be left to ordinary engineers. The experts should continue to explore how to make breakthroughs.

Since it is mainly knowledge-intensive, the overall effort does not need to be very diligent. The brain tires quickly, and too much diligence may not be very effective. The tasks that require diligence can be handed over to third-world countries to do.

When the cutting-edge field produces good products, sells them, and makes money, it can then transfer some to ordinary people through transfer payments. Europe and America generally have fewer people, and the society as a whole is not so competitive.

As for your question, if everyone doesn't work hard, what will they eat and drink?

On the one hand, it is technological agriculture. Everyone knows that the United States is the world's largest grain exporter, with large land and high mechanization, and the Netherlands is also a master of farming.

On the other hand, high technology can be exchanged for low technology. For example, the Netherlands can earn a lot of money by selling lithography machines and then go to Asia to purchase the industrial products they need.

Our country can now eat so much meat (at least much higher than decades ago), an important reason is that we can buy cheap meat and soybeans to feed pigs, and our own grain production cannot support such a huge meat consumption.

Of course, transfer payments are very important. If developed countries do not transfer, the lives of the lower class will not be very good. A symbolic example is the United States. Everyone often sees in movies that the lower class in the United States also has to work three jobs to maintain a normal life.

Saying this, in fact, is to say that our country is now at this turning point. We are also transitioning from "wall-building" industries to knowledge-based industries. Some areas have already made breakthroughs, but they have not yet benefited most industries.

Moreover, the scale is still too small, and the transfer payments are not much, and the population is too large, so most people still have to work hard.This may be why a certain effect emerges: young people are full of confidence in the country's future, but are deeply worried about their own future.

What am I mainly worried about now? It's mainly the following issue.

In my previous article, I talked about the first step of industrial upgrading is research and development. Many people's first reaction is the various research institutes of the country. In fact, in reality, all developed countries are walking on two legs. The country does "0-1", and the bosses in the market do "1-100". Both are very difficult and indispensable, the former is important, and the latter is particularly important.

The previous articles have repeatedly explained a truth: technology needs to be cyclical. You invest 10 billion to develop a new technology, which belongs to "0-1". This step is mainly driven by the country, and companies often can't afford to continue large-scale investment for many years.

After the technology appears, it is necessary to find a way to make it into a product that can be sold, which belongs to "0-100". This requires entrepreneurs who can keenly grasp market demand to do it, and the country has not done a good job in this step.

When the product is sold and the investment is recovered, it continues the next round. During the US-Soviet Cold War, the United States ultimately created a generation gap with the Soviet Union in technology, mainly because their "1-100" was done very well, and the iteration was very fast. The Soviet Union later fell behind in all aspects, mainly because there was a generation gap in technology.

Here are two key issues:

Investing in "1-100" also requires a lot of money, and it needs to be iterated for many years, and there may be a lot of mistakes in the middle, leading to some companies that have chosen the wrong path to be eliminated. What can be done about this? It can only be tried by private capital, because every entrepreneur is facing specific needs, and he knows what the technology should look like to be sold.

The previous article also mentioned that the earliest outbreak of chips was in game consoles, and the graphics cards needed for today's artificial intelligence are also by-products of the gaming industry. Such a development route, the old men and women of the Soviet planned economy committee would never think of it.

Only large-scale investment in the consumer market can provide extremely high income for talents. Let's think about which companies in China have the highest R&D personnel salaries.Of course, it's all a process that requires starting with low-level money-saving and then investing in research and development. In the past few years, our country has experienced a serious brain drain, but it has improved a lot in recent years, mainly because we now have many high-paying positions, and talents are willing to come back.

Speaking of talents, our previous system had too high requirements for talents, always hoping they would make contributions. It's not that dedication is wrong, but it's not conducive to long-term development because what you need is not only talents but also self-sacrificing talents, which are too few.

True top talents should be paid high salaries, live in very expensive neighborhoods, and drive luxury cars. This is the normal state.

The other day, I accidentally saw a paragraph on Zhihu that felt very good:

"In June 2017, Liao Keduo, the political commissar of the Eastern Theater Army, emphasized in his speech: In the future, the military should not easily recall officers and soldiers on leave except for war and major military missions (such as flood control and disaster relief). Our media and propaganda departments should write less about those who are separated from their families and parents for the sake of their country and work, and the 'poor comparison' style of reporting. He 'does not advocate ignoring family affairs, and opposes promoting such cadres as models'.

In February, a letter from Han Weiguo, the commander of the Army, to all the families of officers and soldiers went viral. A unanimous praise was given to a paragraph: 'We require that when parents are sick and dying, when wives are giving birth, and when children are about to take exams, as long as there is no war mission and there is no special mission that cannot be left, they must take leave and go home in time. For individual officers and soldiers who do not go home when their parents are sick, do not take care of their wives when they give birth, and do not help their families in difficulty, not only will they not be praised or publicized, but their true character will also be examined.'

A sentence in the comment area is also very enlightening. He said, 'In the past, everything was scarce, so sacrificing the small family for the sake of the big family was a spirit of sacrifice. Now, it's not scarce, and you don't need to sacrifice anymore. We have the ability to consider the feelings of individuals.'

Only by considering the feelings of individuals, without talking about other things, and giving them enough money, can we truly attract talents and give them enough freedom. With talents, we can develop cutting-edge industries, and cutting-edge products can truly be sold at high prices. Moreover, the practitioners are not tired, and by combining distribution, giving benefits to the grassroots people, everyone can live happily.

Of course, there is no need to say 'the salary of stars is so high'. What we should demand is to pay taxes legally. As long as the taxes are paid, it is normal for stars to have high income.

The issue of increasing the income of scientific researchers mainly depends on private enterprises. The salary given by the country to scientific researchers will not be too high, not only in China, but also in other countries, and the United States is not high (of course, it is not low), but the research institutes and universities are relatively stable, and the performance pressure is not so great. Moreover, universities and research institutes mainly engage in basic research, which cannot be quickly realized, so they will not offer outrageous income.Thus, countries around the world adopt a two-legged approach. The public sector provides stable, low-pressure jobs, with the drawback being that the income won't be excessively high. Private enterprises offer positions with substantial returns, but the downside is the instability; perhaps the company wants to control costs and cuts off a business line, which has been a common practice in large internet companies over the past two years. There's also the possibility that the company itself might fail.

Moreover, the key is to expand openness. After all, all research and development in technology and the enhancement of manufacturing are for our own use, and a significant part is intended to be sold to the world, in exchange for meat, grain, energy, and so on. Only in this way can the standard of living for the common people be truly improved, and everyone can feel genuine happiness.

Let's summarize in two sentences at the end:

The reason we are so competitive is that the vast majority of positions are physically demanding labor akin to building the Great Wall.

To live a good life, we must encourage large companies to invest in research and development, so that scientific researchers can earn high salaries. Only then can they develop more advanced technologies, and high-tech products can be sold at higher prices. With more money, companies can hire more skilled talents, creating a virtuous cycle.

The key is to continue opening up and embracing the global market. After all, the purpose of research and development is to sell products. If the products cannot be sold, companies will have no money, and they will not be able to pay high salaries to researchers, falling back into the previous low-level cycle.

The end of the article. If you think it's well-written, give it a thumbs up.